I have to ask you for a cite on this: what religions are actively withholding food from someone if that someone’s not “hearing the word of the lord”?
What?? Go to any religious food drive/soup kitchen. Not once has food been served before sermon, at least in my experience in PA, NJ and CA. Sermon first, food later. Most of the time I’ve seen the food humans have gathered blessed before served. Show me a cite where this is deemed necessary. Didn’t know that the nation’s canneries needed a little more, ummm, sanitation from above.nAnd like others have pointed out, the RCC needs future members. Why not have a disclaimer of the holy before dishing out the necessities. “I needed food, but got the lord first” is probably why this happens a lot. (A Guess on the exact motive, but certainly not far fetched)
Anyway, I was just disputing an earlier post.
Either way, from what we’ve read on AIDS in this thread, the RCC is doing their best to 1) gather more future church (cult) members and 2) diminish the effects of birth control to either limit AIDS distribution or could care less, but that’s expected of course. I’m anxious to read more of this debate.
Who came for the Pope? I must have missed the news that he’s been dragged away and thrown in a camp. When did that happen?
Oh, you’re just “extrapolating,” then. I’ve seen plenty of soup kitchens where there’s no religious message at all. I’ve seen that from Baptists, from Catholics, from Mormons, from Buddhists, and from Muslims. I’ve even seen those groups working together to feed the hungry with no religious message attached at all. Well, no religious message at all unless you consider merely having the name of the religion on the goods some kind of religious message.
Your remarks about why religious people say grace before a meal isn’t exactly well-grounded in what the purpose of that exercise is either.
People with the Love of Christ are in all areas of live. I’m not necessarily talking about what we may call a christian. But God’s Love working through them (much like the good Samaritan was not a jew, but had God’s Love in His heart).
As such God’s people are placed by God in among other things, evil organizations, such as Nazi, organized crime, governments, and religious structures. This BTW is the invisible church that some RC creeds mention, and IMHO the true and one church that Jesus founded (people with God’s Love in their heart).
As such all organizations that are not of this invisible church are causing problems, including much of as you rightfully point out, the visible churches.
Or another way to look at it is it’s the motivation of the heart that God uses. If the motivator is Love (which is God) then no matter what God will make it work for the good, no matter where you are or how badly you f’ up. That’s all that matters to Him, you following Love in your heart. Any other motivation is not of God and corrupt.
Cite fail.
I work in a religious food bank. (The Culpeper Food Closet in the basement of St. Stephen’s, Culpeper, Va.) I’ve distributed thousands of meals, and never has a sermon been given before any of them.
Let me remind you of what you accused Christians of: “Not giving starving people food UNTIL they hear the word of the lord” (post 29). So to prove that you were right, you’d have to (a) find a place that was actually dealing with starving people–a typical food in this country bank doesn’t–and then give evidence that they provide no food until afer forcing people to listen to a sermon. If you can’t do that, then we’ll have to conclude that you were launching an extremely nasty false accusation at people who are working hard to alleviate hunger.
Do they preach during or after the meal? If so, then it’s a distinction without a difference.
No.
Am I the only one who cares for the Philippines?
Admittedly, it is one of the poorest countries in East Asia, but it was once the richest. Richer than Japan. In the '50’s it was the richest country in Asia.
Marcos stole most of the money, but the Catholic church did their bit to ensure poverty and ignorance. Sad.
newcrasher began the thread by declaring that religion is “evil” and responsible for everything that goes wrong in Africa, Central America, and inner cities. Some folks asked him why, but he (surprise, surpirse) vanished from the thread rather than answering the question. I merely speculated that what he had in mind was this inexplicable idea that the Catholic Church is responsible for AIDS in Africa, despite the fact that the great majority of Africans are not Catholic.
The Pope’s advice is that people ought not to have sex except with their spouse. If everyone followed that advice AIDS wouldn’t spread by sexual contact and millions of people now dead or infected would now instead be healthy. If someone doesn’t follow the Pope’s advice that can hardly be blamed on the Pope.
AIDS spreads so rapidly in southern Africa mainly because of prosititution, gang rape, polygamy, and poor medical sanitation. Enormous resources have been spent pushing condoms in the region, but what progress has resulted? To stop the spread of AIDS we should look to comparable countries where AIDS isn’t spreading. In most Latin American countries AIDS rates are very low, as the map I posted shows. Obviously these countries do not have wealth or high standards of sanitation or anything like that. What they do have is a traditional sexual morality that doesn’t lead to the spread of AIDS.
What exactly are you referring to in this clause? Please be specific.
This is one of the things that convinces me that the “RCC spreads AIDS in Africa” thing is really just anti-Catholic bigotry. While it is true that the RCC is not a big fan of comdoms, it is also true that if people followed RCC teaching, (ie: no sex with anyone but your spouse) then AIDS infection rates would plummet. Also, it is not like a large number of Africans are even Catholic anyway, so why should they care about what the RCC teaches.
More to the point when people talk about why the rates of AIDS are so high in Africa, no-one seems to question conventional secualr attitudes to sex. There the usual position is whatever two consenting people want to do in private is fine. I think this attitude in of itself is probably more destructive than whatever the RCC teaches, because it encourages promiscuity which is one of the major factors for the spread of AIDS. It also implies that if a man does not want to wear a condom, and the woman agrees, then that is his right to do so. People can suggest that he might be better off with a condom, but so long as both sexual partners agree there is nothing immoral in hving sex without a condom. And a lot of men in Africa just don’t want to wear condoms, not because of what the RCC tells them, but because they feel that sex feels better without them, and se AIDS continues to spread.
Secondly there is a question about what western influence and media are doing in Africa, especially relating to the AIDS problem. I was watching a documentary recently that was suggesting that western pornography, often shot without using condoms, was having a significant impact on the attitudes of Africans. That while much of Africa is in poverty, many Africans do still have access to western media through communal resources, and obviously pornography is part of this. So because Africans see westerners having sex without condoms that makes them want to have sex without condoms themselves.
People are simply not asking these types of questions as to what other influences might be leading to the spread of AIDS in Africa. The RCC is simply just a convenient scape-goat for a problem. I think has more to do with the influences of liberal western views of sexuality rather then the RCC. While we continue to simplistically blame the RCC instead of really thinking about the issues, then I think we too can be held responsible for AIDS in Africa.
Calculon.
So, he didn’t say what you implied.
Are all basic natural drives morally neutral?
Can you give me examples of what you consider basic natural drives?
Part two really needs a cite? You really think that a person who cares that much about official RCC policy about sex is going to, say, go to a brothel but he’s gonna tell the prostitute “no condoms, honey, the Pope said so”?
You mean like shooting down the airplanes that carry the condoms?
Punching holes in them?
Giving prizes to people who get infected?
Like telling people they’ll go to hell if they use them.
Your cites don’t help you that much, especially #4. Deal with it - the pope knowingly put out misinformation.
As to human drives, I’m unlikely to convince you that sex is a normal part of life. If you agree with the RCC it’s terminally icky when performed outside of marriage, and presumably at all times when the lights are on.
We’re here to fight ignorance. So by all means, let’s all take advice on public health, epidemiology and human sexuality from the pope - an elderly virgin without a medical degree.
The thing is though, that your attitude on this is against the available evidence. The cites show that condom programs that the Pope is against does not actually lead to reductions in AIDS infection rates. The picture that the cites reveal is that the main problem in Africa is not so much rampant promiscuity, but long term concurrent relationships or serial polygamy. These relationships are not generally seen as “risky” even though they are, and so people are more reluctant to use condoms when having sex in these relationships. There is also the problem that people with condoms may just engage in in riskier behaviour, meaning that there is no effective reduction in infection rates.
What has been shown empirically to work is campains that encourage monogamy. For instance the “Zero grazing” campaign in Uganda has shown large, empirically measurable reductions in the rates of AIDS infections. Which is exactly what the RCC is saying. You can stick to your “common sense” assessments that monogamy campaigns do not work. Evidence from reality however shows that they can work, and that condom based campaigns, wherever they have been tried, do not significantly reduce AIDS infection rates.
I am also interested in what “misinformation” precisely the Pope has put out. Based on the available evidence it seems that he is right to assert that condoms alone will not stop AIDS in Africa.
Calculon.
Sorry, busy with life. Started a new job today and don’t have Dope access.
My original cite stands. Here’s paragraph six again:
Bolding mine. I’d just as soon listen to a TV psychic.
It’s always vaguely entertaining to you in action. You fulminate against religion because you claim it makes statements of belief that are not based on evidence, and must be taken on faith. Then you make statements of belief that are not based on evidence, and must be taken on faith.
Regards,
Shodan
About 80%.